Voluntary host migration

[SpoonyBrad]

The idea is pretty much what it says on the can: give teams an option to vote to change which player is hosting mid-mission (and do not require unanimity or specifically voting for who hosts, just a majority saying "somebody else"). I have a pretty solid internet connection (at least when my ISP isn't screwing up), but have played quite a few matches where it was obvious the host did not, which can do some very weird things to the game (enemy animations glitching, doors not opening, surprise teleports to where you were several seconds ago, etc.). I've played matches where I've been on a four person squad and three of the four spent most of the match remarking that it had the worst host lag they'd ever seen (and one at least claimed to have been playing since Warframe's early beta period) (and the fourth player, the host, didn't seem to speak English); for a scenario like that, the ability to simply bring up the ESC menu and put in a vote for "somebody else host", and not just whine about it while everything around you glitches out, would be a huge QoL improvement.

Of course, while I'm making my Christmas wish list, I'd really like dedicated server software that works on CentOS (Linux distribution) so that I could host on my own actual server (located in an actual datacenter with redundant connections), but that's pretty unlikely (to put it very, very mildly).

[Cortanis]

I can get behind this as one of those people with blatantly sh**** connection and often times ends up hosting. We're not just talking lag, but near crash worthy lag due to my connection at times. More often than not, I don't have issues actually connecting to people even in the same group at that point ether. It's just in hosting. Better to be able to force switch than crash out or not be able to play.

[Aurea_Hiigara]

Got my vote as well. My 12 KB/s upstream just isn't enough to host for more than one person. Nor is it enough to use status-per-second weapons like the Ignis or Octavia, which causes its own kind of crazy.

[SpoonyBrad]

It's quite nice to hear assenting opinions from Tenno who have been on the opposite end as well; I was afraid I might have come across as "your connection is bad and you should feel bad" (talk about first world problems...).

There's fancier networking stuff that could, in theory, be done to identify who would be the "best" host for a given match, but it would also be substantially more complex to code than a "let's just change hosts" vote button, since host migration is already implemented anyway (it would also add significant loading time, since, more or less by definition, testing latency (and packet loss rates) requires waiting).

[Cortanis]

31 minutes ago, SpoonyBrad said:

I was afraid I might have come across as "your connection is bad and you should feel bad"

Maybe when we all have collective access to ISP's that aren't s*** to begin with, those could be valid comments. Until then, we're stuck with what appears to be a laundry list of ISP that have their package bundled with something else in an effort to sell that thing and not the ISP services..... I"m looking at you Comcast and Time Warner.

[SpoonyBrad]

Heh, I'm probably not supposed to reveal this, but I used to have to do work for Comcast (note I said "for"; I wasn't a direct employee and didn't even get the employee perks (If you can even call "free internet service from Comcast" a perk)). Their internal system for checking on someone's connection status? Before it even showed whether the modem was up or down, it showed whether they were in a Verizon FiOS market (and thus actually had an alternative). Even in major U.S. urban centers, ISPs have underinvested in their infrastructure for years because they didn't have to compete (and I'm afraid the merger a while back of Time Warner Cable, Charter, and Brighthouse into "Spectrum" is not likely to make that situation better; I'm pretty sure that Google's venture into the ISP world was never to actually become an ISP, but to shame ISPs into doing better by showing it was possible).

"Your connection is bad and you should feel bad" was a deliberate joke that might have been missed; there has been a lot of memetic mutation since then, but it started as a Futurama reference (which is apparently more than a decade old now? Man, but that makes me feel ancient). It was never intended to be taken even slightly seriously.

Still, getting back on topic, as connection quality can vary, and availability of quality connections can vary depending on the part of the world you're in (and matchmaking is routinely international, particularly if you tend to be up at odd hours like me), I think we are in agreement that a simple vote button to change hosts would not be out of line to request. (I'd still love to see dedicated server software that I could run on my actual server, but I'm not holding my breath (I'd asphyxiate long before I got it))

[AlphaFenrir401]

I would love this I have the worst upload and ok down and I HATE when it makes me host cause the other people lag and I do just fine when I'm not the host 

[MagPrime]

Yes, please. 

[(XBOX)SickWicked]

up vote from me!!